On Tuesday, Sarasota will vote on city measure 2 to replace our "delayed," two-election runoffs with instant runoff voting.
Backed by the League of Women Voters, city question 2 is a commonsense reform thatwill save taxpayers money, protect the rights of military voters, reducemoney in politics and reduce overly negative campaigns.

Citywide runoffs pose several problems. First, they cost an extra $37,000 for a second election that shouldn't be needed. What would youlike to do with an extra $37,000?

Second, runoffs pose a great problem for overseas members of the armedforces. It's nearly impossible to determine the candidates in the runoff, print absentee ballots and mail them to overseas voters fastenough for ballots to be returned in time to count in runoffs. That'swhy overseas voters use IRV ballots for federal and state elections withrunoffs in Arkansas, Louisiana and South Carolina.

Third, one-on-one races in runoffs can get nasty. When it's just twocandidates, attacks are more effective -- if you drive down support foryour opponent, it helps you.

Fourth, when candidates are forced into the runoff, they need to raisemore money -- and fast. Consolidating two elections into one reducescampaign spending.

Here's how Question 2 works to address these problems. Voters rank candidates in order of choice: They indicate a first choice, but havethe option to indicate a second choice, third choice, and so on. For thevoters, that's all there is to it.

Evidence from cities with IRV shows that voters find it easy to
do.

To determine a majority winner, all voters' first choices are totaledfor each candidate. If one candidate has majority support (50 percentplus 1), that candidate wins. If not, the top candidates advance to arunoff round of counting. If your first choice makes it to the runoff,your vote counts for that candidate. If your first choice has lost, yourballot counts for the runoff candidate who is ranked next on the
ballot.

Instant runoff voting represents the choices between the top candidatesin a runoff that was held the same day as the first election.

Recent presidential elections help show how IRV would work. In 1992, forexample, Bill Clinton won 43 percent of the vote, George H.W. Bush won37 percent and Ross Perot 19 percent. If IRV had been used, Perot wouldhave lost. His voters' ballots then would have been added to the totalsof Clinton and Bush based on their second-choice rankings. We would havedetermined the real majority winner.

The same would have been true in 2000, when George Bush ran against AlGore, and Ralph Nader won enough votes that no candidate won a majority.Many nations hold separate runoffs to decide such elections. That's expensive for taxpayers and the candidates. But through IRV, we can determine majority winners in one election.

IRV has earned growing attention for how it empowers voters. It's passedin 10 straight ballot questions, in cities in California, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Vermont and Washington. IRV was used this month inCary, a North Carolina city of 115,000, and touted as a great success.It avoided the need for a runoff in one city contest.

In Florida, IRV has been endorsed by the League of Women Voters and newspapers such as the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, The Bradenton Herald,Pelican Press, St. Petersburg Times, Lakeland Ledger, Southwest FloridaNews Press and Palm Beach Post. National backers include current andpast presidential candidates Sens. John McCain, R-Ill., and Barack Obama, D-Ill., Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, and former Congressman JohnAnderson, R-Ill.

A win for Question 2 doesn't mean we will rush in moving to instant runoff voting. This responsible reform measure will be implemented onlywhen our election officials are ready. But at that time, we'll gain great benefits. IRV truly represents common sense.